4 ms·

This: If the idea is that there is some content you don't want a subset of people to see than it's a mistake to post it. is a privileged perspective. I'm gue

This: If the idea is that there is some content you don't want a subset of people to see than it's a mistake to post it. is a privileged perspective. I'm guessing a lot of HNers aren't subject to gang injunctions, but imagine for a moment that you are. Suddenly, "pictures of me and my friends hanging out" become dangerous, something that can land you in jail. Or let's say you identify as queer to your close friends and immediate family, but you have more distant relatives who you're not ready to tell just yet, but don't want to 'unfriend' on Facebook. Or let's say you're a member of a religious group that's persecuted in the country you live in, but you'd still like to be a part of Facebook groups full of people for whom it's not an issue. The fact that you're able to be the same person in public at all times is a privilege that not everyone has. For everyone else, you're saying that constant self-censorship should be "good enough". I find that perspective abhorrent.

pyre 13y ago
I think the general opinion of the parent poster is that if you are posting something that you wish to be private, then you shouldn't. The idea being that Facebook now has access to it, as do their advertisers (possibly). That information can now be released publicly intentionally or unintentionally. For example, the act of posting it, even to a subset of friends, is a risk. There's the possibility of a Facebook bug that sends that information public instead.
- fossuser 13y ago
  Yeah that's what I was trying to suggest, and even if there is no bug people can share it outside of your protected group pretty easily.
  - pyre 13y ago
    This is less of an issue though. Presumably if your 'inner circle' knows that you are gay, then sharing LBGT links on Facebook isn't going to increase the likelihood that they will spill the beans to someone by a large margin.
- beatpanda 13y ago
  ...which should be an indictment of Facebook's misunderstanding of how social identity works in the real world, not of its users.
- beatpanda 13y ago
  It's also important to point out that Facebook is decidedly not neutral on this issue. They take information that used to be private and make it public all the time, because they think it should be, and every new product feature is built from that perspective. That is a bug.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    It's a bug for us, a feature for them :-/
fossuser 13y ago
What I'm saying is that if you have real secrets it's a bad idea to share them to a subset online because it's trivial for that to get shared outside of that group. I also think these situations are not the common case and because of this should not be the default. The ability to configure this exists within facebook.
- lsc 13y ago
  >What I'm saying is that if you have real secrets it's a bad idea to share them to a subset online because it's trivial for that to get shared outside of that group. Using a pseudonym can help a lot. I mean, it's not 100%, but it's really the best you've got. but yeah, that's what I think is wrong with both facebook and google plus; both expect us to have a single identity, and then to trust them to separate out our different faces to different groups. I mean, the big problem here is that they expect me to use my real name. Well, facebook never was a professional network. It started out as the 'get me a date' context, but is now solidly in the 'family' context. Problem is? it uses my real name. Like most people, I've chosen to use my real name in the business context, so I've now got bleedthrough. (I mean, for me, that bleedthrough isn't going to get me thrown in jail- it's mostly about having to deal with two sets of inboxes with dramatically different priorities. This would be a much bigger deal if i was sharing family secrets I didn't want generally known in my professional context, or something like that.)
- einhverfr 13y ago
  But again, that's what's wrong with facebook. The Zucherberg has basically said he things we need less privacy, but humans need that safe place, and a society without privacy doesn't offer that. The thing is many facebook users understand that.
  - stephengillie 13y ago
    The problem isnt Facebook, the problem is People who have built their lives on the skeletons in their closet, and technology allowing people to know more about each other. Your neighbors know tons about you, but you're only worried about people working in datacenters.
hoopla2013 13y ago
1) I really don't say this to attack you personally, but frankly using the word "privileged" like that is whiny typical out if touch grad-student speak, it's divorced from reality. People are not that helpless 2) Anyone who actually finds themselves under a gang injunction or might be hurt by bigoted family members ought to be smart and not post & overshare. 3) Self-censorship & under sharing is a wonderful strategy to make one's life easier. Publicly posting on ad-supported social networks isn't free speech or a crucial method of self-expression. If one is under threat, there are tons of ways to express oneself- all of which are low to zero cost: Go blog; make a fake twitter account; etc 4) The thing I'm genuinely scared of is "frictionless sharing" on social networks (Esp Linkedin) that can have real-life implications.
- beatpanda 13y ago
  I don't mean this personally either, but I think anyone who believes using the word "privileged" is "out-of-touch" probably needs to get more in touch with levels of society outside their own.
  - hoopla2013 13y ago
    For sure- I hear that it's difficult to write what I wrote without sounding like a snobby d-bag- I just hate that phrase, the language & syntax of it (usually because it is abused so often by well-intentioned grad students) To be clear, I don't dispute the idea for one second that there are some ppl in US that no matter what they do or how hard they try it will be exceedingly difficult for them to get ahead. I also have no disagreement that aloof & sheltered (but perhaps well-meaning) say that all marginalized/overlooked people need to do is pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I'm not sure even where you & I agree "disagree" that much, but I figure that since there are a ton of options online that are super-easy for even zero-tech savvy people to find & use to express themselves & conceal their identity this isn't that big of a crisis
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - 13y ago

pyre 13y ago

I think the general opinion of the parent poster is that if you are posting something that you wish to be private, then you shouldn't. The idea being that Facebook now has access to it, as do their advertisers (possibly). That information can now be released publicly intentionally or unintentionally. For example, the act of posting it, even to a subset of friends, is a risk. There's the possibility of a Facebook bug that sends that information public instead.

fossuser 13y ago
Yeah that's what I was trying to suggest, and even if there is no bug people can share it outside of your protected group pretty easily.
- pyre 13y ago
  This is less of an issue though. Presumably if your 'inner circle' knows that you are gay, then sharing LBGT links on Facebook isn't going to increase the likelihood that they will spill the beans to someone by a large margin.
beatpanda 13y ago
...which should be an indictment of Facebook's misunderstanding of how social identity works in the real world, not of its users.
beatpanda 13y ago
It's also important to point out that Facebook is decidedly not neutral on this issue. They take information that used to be private and make it public all the time, because they think it should be, and every new product feature is built from that perspective. That is a bug.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  It's a bug for us, a feature for them :-/

fossuser 13y ago

What I'm saying is that if you have real secrets it's a bad idea to share them to a subset online because it's trivial for that to get shared outside of that group. I also think these situations are not the common case and because of this should not be the default. The ability to configure this exists within facebook.

lsc 13y ago
>What I'm saying is that if you have real secrets it's a bad idea to share them to a subset online because it's trivial for that to get shared outside of that group. Using a pseudonym can help a lot. I mean, it's not 100%, but it's really the best you've got. but yeah, that's what I think is wrong with both facebook and google plus; both expect us to have a single identity, and then to trust them to separate out our different faces to different groups. I mean, the big problem here is that they expect me to use my real name. Well, facebook never was a professional network. It started out as the 'get me a date' context, but is now solidly in the 'family' context. Problem is? it uses my real name. Like most people, I've chosen to use my real name in the business context, so I've now got bleedthrough. (I mean, for me, that bleedthrough isn't going to get me thrown in jail- it's mostly about having to deal with two sets of inboxes with dramatically different priorities. This would be a much bigger deal if i was sharing family secrets I didn't want generally known in my professional context, or something like that.)
einhverfr 13y ago
But again, that's what's wrong with facebook. The Zucherberg has basically said he things we need less privacy, but humans need that safe place, and a society without privacy doesn't offer that. The thing is many facebook users understand that.
- stephengillie 13y ago
  The problem isnt Facebook, the problem is People who have built their lives on the skeletons in their closet, and technology allowing people to know more about each other. Your neighbors know tons about you, but you're only worried about people working in datacenters.

hoopla2013 13y ago

1) I really don't say this to attack you personally, but frankly using the word "privileged" like that is whiny typical out if touch grad-student speak, it's divorced from reality. People are not that helpless 2) Anyone who actually finds themselves under a gang injunction or might be hurt by bigoted family members ought to be smart and not post & overshare. 3) Self-censorship & under sharing is a wonderful strategy to make one's life easier. Publicly posting on ad-supported social networks isn't free speech or a crucial method of self-expression. If one is under threat, there are tons of ways to express oneself- all of which are low to zero cost: Go blog; make a fake twitter account; etc 4) The thing I'm genuinely scared of is "frictionless sharing" on social networks (Esp Linkedin) that can have real-life implications.

beatpanda 13y ago
I don't mean this personally either, but I think anyone who believes using the word "privileged" is "out-of-touch" probably needs to get more in touch with levels of society outside their own.
- hoopla2013 13y ago
  For sure- I hear that it's difficult to write what I wrote without sounding like a snobby d-bag- I just hate that phrase, the language & syntax of it (usually because it is abused so often by well-intentioned grad students) To be clear, I don't dispute the idea for one second that there are some ppl in US that no matter what they do or how hard they try it will be exceedingly difficult for them to get ahead. I also have no disagreement that aloof & sheltered (but perhaps well-meaning) say that all marginalized/overlooked people need to do is pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I'm not sure even where you & I agree "disagree" that much, but I figure that since there are a ton of options online that are super-easy for even zero-tech savvy people to find & use to express themselves & conceal their identity this isn't that big of a crisis
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - 13y ago